5 ms·

Monsanto wants to argue that seeds are patentable because they are unique and involve human intelligence endeavour which should be protected. They also argue t

by amalag 14y ago

Monsanto wants to argue that seeds are patentable because they are unique and involve human intelligence endeavour which should be protected. They also argue that GMO foods do not need to be labeled as such for the consumer because they are not significantly different from 'regular' foods. Any contradictions?

mhb 14y ago
No. An analogous example would be if you invented a way to produce an artificial (human) organ (e.g., liver) that was indistinguishable from a natural one.
- atakan_gurkan 14y ago
  That would not be analogous at all. An analogous example would be if you made an artificial human organ that (supposedly) serves an identical function, but is different enough that it is immune to certain diseases.
  - mhb 14y ago
    amalag was suggesting that there is a contradiction because Monsanto is claiming protection because they have invented something which is 'unique' and yet 'not significantly different'. The analogy I suggested refutes that. Your suggestion that there may, in fact, be aspects of Monsanto's invention which make it different from what it replaces does not bear on amalag's original inquiry.
- talmand 14y ago
  You are talking about having a patent on the method to create the organ, not the organ itself. It seems to me that if Monsanto can have a patent on a "unique" seed that at the same time is indistinguishable from a natural one then it can be argued their patent covers the natural one as well. Especially if nature takes its usual course where the natural seed slowly takes on the characteristics of the patented seed due to cross pollination. Which cannot be easily controlled in an open field unless Monsanto wants to crack down on all the insects involved in pollination. Oh yes, make the wind illegal as well. Based on articles I've read about Monsanto's behavior in this industry it seems they think they do indeed own the rights to soybean seeds in the US. If the patent covered the process of creating said seed then I can understand. But I don't agree that one can claim to be unique and generic at the same time. Plus if the resulting seed is indistinguishable from a natural one and the patent was on the seed itself then it would seem that the natural seed is the prior art to counter the patent in the first place. In your example, a proper comparison would be if the new organ is resistive to aging or whatever other common human failing that would cause one to replace the organ. Therefore, it is not indistinguishable from the natural one. It would indeed have a distinguishable characteristic that makes it different than a natural one. Then you can have the patent on the organ. But don't tell me you own the liver of the child of the parent who received your organ because somehow the characteristics of your special organ was passed down to said child.
  - mhb 14y ago
    OK. Thanks.
- Zikes 14y ago
  On a somewhat related note, if Monsanto created an artificial uterus indistinguishable from a natural one, would they own the reproductive rights of the person it was implanted in?
  - talmand 14y ago
    If we go with the current train of thought around their seed? No. But if they did create a new characteristic for that uterus, let's say it's resistive to disease, and that characteristic was passed down to the child. Then they would claim that child owed them money because that child's uterus benefits from the characteristic of the original uterus they provided. The problem doesn't lay around the idea that Monsanto owns the seed they created. I don't dispute that. The problem is that they claim that they own the rights to anything resulting from that seed forever in the future, including cross pollination. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. The best defense I've heard against Monsanto is that Monsanto's seeds are contaminating "pure" or "natural" crops of soybeans. Which is probably where the argument that the seeds are indistinguishable from natural ones and resulting foods do not need a label telling the consumer the soybeans involved are genetically modified comes from. In that case Monsanto wants both sides covered to their advantage; ie, the seed is unique enough to allow for patent protection but no different than a natural one so you don't need to be told that it is genetically modified.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      Then they would claim that child owed them money No, they would not. Children cannot enter into contracts. Even if you think Monsanto is pure evil, they would not try that. The best a company could do is contract with the parents to indemnify the company against the actions of the putative child. But patents will expire before the child is capable of entering into contracts anyway. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. That's not what the linked article is about.
      - 14y ago
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  The correct analogy would be if Monsanto created genetically engineered humans who are immune to certain diseases, but made them sterile, and then sued them when they managed to procreate anyway. These seeds are functionally different from ordinary seeds, and Monsanto is claiming patents on any seeds that contain the similar DNA.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    but made them sterile Monsanto never sold terminator-seeds. They consciously decided to not do that and instead use contracts and patent law to protect their stuff. 9/10 of the comments on this thread are suggesting that Monsanto should have done the terminator tech, though.
    - talmand 14y ago
      Thus my problems with Monsanto. It just reeks that they knew the outcome of all this and have tried to set themselves up as the owners of all seeds involved in farming they provide seeds for. If they started with sterile seeds that could not be cross pollinated then I would slightly different attitude towards them. But I would still think it wrong for them to attack farmers who unknowingly end up with their seeds, such as from a granary like in the linked article. They should have to prove the farmer tried to get such seeds through improper channels.
      - danielweber 14y ago
        People were freaking out over terminator seeds, claiming it was going to (somehow) spread to other things and end all life on earth. Monsanto responded by pledging not to use terminator seeds. The anti-GMO crowd got exactly what they wanted. [1] It's churlish for the mob to claim they were bad for wanting to use terminator seeds, and then claim that they don't have protection because they didn't use terminator seeds. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm
        14y ago

by amalag 14y ago

mhb 14y ago

No. An analogous example would be if you invented a way to produce an artificial (human) organ (e.g., liver) that was indistinguishable from a natural one.

atakan_gurkan 14y ago
That would not be analogous at all. An analogous example would be if you made an artificial human organ that (supposedly) serves an identical function, but is different enough that it is immune to certain diseases.
- mhb 14y ago
  amalag was suggesting that there is a contradiction because Monsanto is claiming protection because they have invented something which is 'unique' and yet 'not significantly different'. The analogy I suggested refutes that. Your suggestion that there may, in fact, be aspects of Monsanto's invention which make it different from what it replaces does not bear on amalag's original inquiry.
talmand 14y ago
You are talking about having a patent on the method to create the organ, not the organ itself. It seems to me that if Monsanto can have a patent on a "unique" seed that at the same time is indistinguishable from a natural one then it can be argued their patent covers the natural one as well. Especially if nature takes its usual course where the natural seed slowly takes on the characteristics of the patented seed due to cross pollination. Which cannot be easily controlled in an open field unless Monsanto wants to crack down on all the insects involved in pollination. Oh yes, make the wind illegal as well. Based on articles I've read about Monsanto's behavior in this industry it seems they think they do indeed own the rights to soybean seeds in the US. If the patent covered the process of creating said seed then I can understand. But I don't agree that one can claim to be unique and generic at the same time. Plus if the resulting seed is indistinguishable from a natural one and the patent was on the seed itself then it would seem that the natural seed is the prior art to counter the patent in the first place. In your example, a proper comparison would be if the new organ is resistive to aging or whatever other common human failing that would cause one to replace the organ. Therefore, it is not indistinguishable from the natural one. It would indeed have a distinguishable characteristic that makes it different than a natural one. Then you can have the patent on the organ. But don't tell me you own the liver of the child of the parent who received your organ because somehow the characteristics of your special organ was passed down to said child.
- mhb 14y ago
  OK. Thanks.
Zikes 14y ago
On a somewhat related note, if Monsanto created an artificial uterus indistinguishable from a natural one, would they own the reproductive rights of the person it was implanted in?
- talmand 14y ago
  If we go with the current train of thought around their seed? No. But if they did create a new characteristic for that uterus, let's say it's resistive to disease, and that characteristic was passed down to the child. Then they would claim that child owed them money because that child's uterus benefits from the characteristic of the original uterus they provided. The problem doesn't lay around the idea that Monsanto owns the seed they created. I don't dispute that. The problem is that they claim that they own the rights to anything resulting from that seed forever in the future, including cross pollination. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. The best defense I've heard against Monsanto is that Monsanto's seeds are contaminating "pure" or "natural" crops of soybeans. Which is probably where the argument that the seeds are indistinguishable from natural ones and resulting foods do not need a label telling the consumer the soybeans involved are genetically modified comes from. In that case Monsanto wants both sides covered to their advantage; ie, the seed is unique enough to allow for patent protection but no different than a natural one so you don't need to be told that it is genetically modified.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Then they would claim that child owed them money No, they would not. Children cannot enter into contracts. Even if you think Monsanto is pure evil, they would not try that. The best a company could do is contract with the parents to indemnify the company against the actions of the putative child. But patents will expire before the child is capable of entering into contracts anyway. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. That's not what the linked article is about.
    - 14y ago
lukeschlather 14y ago
The correct analogy would be if Monsanto created genetically engineered humans who are immune to certain diseases, but made them sterile, and then sued them when they managed to procreate anyway. These seeds are functionally different from ordinary seeds, and Monsanto is claiming patents on any seeds that contain the similar DNA.
- danielweber 14y ago
  but made them sterile Monsanto never sold terminator-seeds. They consciously decided to not do that and instead use contracts and patent law to protect their stuff. 9/10 of the comments on this thread are suggesting that Monsanto should have done the terminator tech, though.
  - talmand 14y ago
    Thus my problems with Monsanto. It just reeks that they knew the outcome of all this and have tried to set themselves up as the owners of all seeds involved in farming they provide seeds for. If they started with sterile seeds that could not be cross pollinated then I would slightly different attitude towards them. But I would still think it wrong for them to attack farmers who unknowingly end up with their seeds, such as from a granary like in the linked article. They should have to prove the farmer tried to get such seeds through improper channels.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      People were freaking out over terminator seeds, claiming it was going to (somehow) spread to other things and end all life on earth. Monsanto responded by pledging not to use terminator seeds. The anti-GMO crowd got exactly what they wanted. [1] It's churlish for the mob to claim they were bad for wanting to use terminator seeds, and then claim that they don't have protection because they didn't use terminator seeds. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/465969.stm
      - 14y ago